Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 5/15/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) California Adopts No Significant Risk Level For Styrene
May 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has adopted a Proposition 65 no significant risk level (NSRL) for styrene of 27micrograms per day (µg/day). -
Peer Review Report Questions Perchlorate Model's Fitness For EPA Policy
May 15, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
The final report by a panel of experts who reviewed a federal model intended to help EPA set a drinking water standard for the rocket fuel ingredient perchlorate questions the model's ability to perform its purpose, and by its extension EPA's ability to meet court-ordered deadlines for the drinking water level. -
The Senate is About to Pass a Bill That Could Keep Asbestos and Other Deadly Chemicals Legal
May 15, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Alex Formuzis
Seat belts. Two pilots in every cockpit. Cribs that don’t strangle infants. These federal rules, and many others, have saved a lot of lives over the years. In the process they’ve made American consumer products better and given customers more confidence in their purchases. -
EU member States Back D4 And D5 Restriction Proposal
May 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch
EU member states have voted to approve a proposal to restrict the use of octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) and decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5) in wash-off cosmetic products in a concentration equal to or greater than 0.1% by weight. -
Paper Questions LNG Demand Growth Centers
May 15, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
Natural gas demand in the two giant Asian economies has an uncertain future, despite the best hopes of liquefied natural gas exporters, warns a study by energy economists. -
Package Will Land On Hill In A Few Weeks — Chao
May 15, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Camille von Kaenel
The Trump administration will send its infrastructure package to Congress in a few weeks, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce today. -
Could The Energy Bill Make A Comeback?
May 15, 2017 | Roll Call
By Jeremy Dillon
The broad energy bill that stalled at the end of the last Congress may have new life, according to comments by the two leaders of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee during an recent event at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. -
Grid Review Splits Renewable Energy Providers
May 15, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Christa Marshall
Several renewable energy groups are urging Energy Secretary Rick Perry to use a contested grid study to consider how their industries are not receiving the same benefits as wind, natural gas and other technologies. -
'Dangerous' Ransomware Campaign Roils Global Computer Networks
May 15, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
A global digital hostage crisis unfolded Friday as a wormlike "ransomware" campaign infected thousands of computers in at least 74 countries, according to multiple authorities in the U.S. and Europe. -
Everyone Agrees The New Orleans Public Belt Is A Critical Cog In The Global Economy. What To Do With It Is Another Question
May 15, 2017 | Greater Baton Rouge Business Report
By Meredith Whitten
For 109 years the New Orleans Public Belt Railroad has served as a catalyst for regional economic development by connecting the Port of New Orleans with railroad services. -
Carbon Tax Attempts Sweeping The Northeast
May 15, 2017 | The Washington Post (In E&E Climatewire)
By Chelsea Harvey
A group of states — predominantly in the Northeast — are renewing attempts to adopt a carbon tax. -
Occidental Petroleum Shareholders Make History With Climate Vote
May 15, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Hulac
Occidental Petroleum Corp. stockholders have demanded the company produce a report detailing how climate change threatens its business. -
Former Pentagon Chief: Arctic Drilling Order Could Threaten Security
May 15, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Former Secretary of Defense and CIA Director Leon Panetta says President Trump’s executive order to expand offshore drilling could threaten national security.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) California Adopts No Significant Risk Level For Styrene
May 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has adopted a Proposition 65 no significant risk level (NSRL) for styrene of 27micrograms per day (µg/day).
NSRLs represent the safe harbour level below which warning is not required. The agency's action affirms the proposed level it set out when it listed styrene as a carcinogen under Prop 65 in April 2016.
In comments, the industry group Styrene Information and Research Center (Sirc) had advocated much higher safe harbour levels – 2,100µg/day for inhalation exposure and 5,600µg/day for oral exposure – based on an internal dose for the target sub-tissue, rather than using whole tissue or administered dose.
But in its final statement of reason (FSOR), Oehha said it found the industry group's proposed values "not well supported by the underlying data".
More specifically, it said the physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model used by Sirc to derive these levels was speculative and failed to "accurately model substantial elements of the available dataset". It raised additional issues with the assumptions and models used in the analysis.
It therefore found that Sirc's proposed NSRLs "are not likely to be sufficiently protective of human health", and reasserted that 27µg/day is the appropriate value.
The FSOR also addresses comments submitted by the American Chemistry Council’s Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group (PFPG) on polystyrene food packaging.
Oehha said a warning for styrene would only be required when exposures exceed the NSRL, and that the levels of residual styrene in polystyrene food packaging materials "are generally thought to be fairly low in most cases".
It said it can provide compliance assistance for styrene exposure from specific products through development of safe use determinations (SUDs), where requested.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55849/california-adopts-no-significant-risk-level-for-styrene
-
Peer Review Report Questions Perchlorate Model's Fitness For EPA Policy
May 15, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
The final report by a panel of experts who reviewed a federal model intended to help EPA set a drinking water standard for the rocket fuel ingredient perchlorate questions the model's ability to perform its purpose, and by its extension EPA's ability to meet court-ordered deadlines for the drinking water level.
Hugh Barton, who chaired the peer review panel, said that the lack of a "clear description of how the model and its outputs would be used in the risk assessment process makes it difficult to evaluate whether the model is fit for purpose. Models can always be improved, but the question needs to be whether the model is ready for the intended" use.
Barton, a research fellow at Pfizer, Inc., was not alone in his evaluation of the model. Most of the other reviewers in the group's final report also question the model's readiness for regulatory use, or suggest that they were unable to judge its fitness since they were unaware of its purpose.
Barton, a modeling expert, was a key member of the Science Advisory Board (SAB) panel that in 2013 reviewed EPA's literature search and white paper intended to inform the agency's ongoing effort to regulate perchlorate in drinking water. That panel -- at the urging of Barton and other modelers on the panel -- recommended that EPA use a modeling approach to inform the levels at which it sets its health-based maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) for perchlorate and the enforceable standard for the chemical, which considers treatment feasibility and cost.
At the time, the advice was considered novel because it called on EPA to use a modeling approach rather than the traditional algebraic approach to setting drinking water goals. The reviewers' comments highlight the technical challenges of such an approach, even for the rare chemical, like perchlorate, whose mode of action is generally well-understood. Perchlorate is one of several chemicals known to be inhibitors of iodine uptake, which helps to regulate thyroid hormones. If the thyroid is sufficiently altered for too long during sensitive developmental stages, this can lead to neurodevelopmental and other effects, such as goiter.
One of the members of the new peer review panel, Angela Leung, a medical doctor specializing in thyroid endocrinology, says "the model presents an estimate of the potential thyroidal effects resulting from perchlorate exposure, but is likely still fairly inexact."
The comments raise questions about EPA's ability to meet a court-ordered deadline to propose a drinking water goal for perchlorate by Oct. 31, 2018, and finalize it by December 2019 after the agency reached a settlement last fall with environmentalists in a lawsuit over the Obama EPA's missed statutory deadline. EPA's ability to meet its first deadline is perhaps further in question since they agency has indicated that it intends to conduct a second peer review on its plans of how to use the model. The settlement says the agency intends to complete by Oct. 18, 2017, peer review of materials that will inform the Safe Drinking Water Act rulemaking.
Peer Review
During the panel's two-day peer review meeting, held in Arlington, VA, last January, Peter Grevatt, director of EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, told panelists that the model is the first step in a two-step process to complete the cause-effect linkage. He said that EPA's planned use of the model and the data it is connected to will be peer reviewed at a later date by a second peer review panel.
The report's statements reiterate concerns that panelists raised during that meeting, such as the issue that EPA's model does not address what is considered the most sensitive lifestage to perchlorate exposure -- the fetus of an iodine-deficient pregnant woman, particularly in the first trimester. However, what appears to be a consensus statement at the beginning of the report suggests that panelists agree on how EPA should deal with that issue.
The report states that "[t]he peer reviewers agreed that modeling maternal thyroid hormones would be a sound basis for evaluating the potential for fetal effects. Clinical studies have related maternal thyroid hormone levels during pregnancy to neurodevelopmental outcomes such as IQ, brain imaging, or diagnoses such as [attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder]."
Still, the panel in January also appeared to show disagreement among members over some points, largely those with modeling or risk assessment experience rather than clinical backgrounds, suggesting the model may be adequate for some applications with limited improvements. They noted that models can always be improved, but that large scale revisions are time-consuming. They questioned whether some of the changes other panelists recommended would be worth undertaking.
As part of a contractor-managed panel, the experts are not required to reach consensus on their answers to EPA's charge questions. Instead, the contractor provided EPA with a report containing a common summary of the panel's discussion written by its chairman and individual reports from each reviewer answering the charge questions. The result is a document that could provide EPA varying opinions. This may complicate EPA's ability to respond to certain recommendations, or make it easier for the agency to dismiss some challenging recommendations.
One panelist, Claude Emond, a modeling expert with the University of Montreal, argues the model "can be used for human risk assessments of health, with the limitation suggested by the authors. . . . I agree with the authors' conclusions regarding the predictability and the limitations of this model. . . . In addition, the simulations reviewed in this report reproduced relatively well the biomonitoring data published."
Targeted Improvements
Another panel member, Stephen Roberts, a toxicology professor at the University of Florida, and the chairman of the previous SAB panel, provides recommendations to help EPA make targeted improvements to the model and its explanation of the model, rather than wholesale changes, to enhance and expedite its regulatory use. "It is apparent that a great deal of work has been conducted to develop a proposed [biologically based dose-response] model that is responsive to recommendations made by the SAB Perchlorate Advisory Panel. There are many strengths to the model and its intended use in developing a MCLG for perchlorate," Roberts writes, before urging EPA to clarify its report describing the model and its intended use.
"Although some improvements in the model and documentation can and should be made, as discussed in these comments, it is important to keep in perspective the unique advantages to this approach in reducing uncertainty in risk estimation compared with the typical approach for most chemicals," Roberts adds.
Roberts says that in addition to a clearer modeling report, EPA also needs to provide better explanation and justification for some of the choices made in constructing the model. "In my opinion, it will be important to include in the report explanations why certain aspects raised by public commenters and in panel discussions were not part of this iteration of the model. Examples include co-exposure to other goitrogens, compensatory effects in response to perchlorate inhibition, and probabilistic inputs. There can be a number of legitimate reasons why possible inclusions or refinements in the model were not chosen for this iteration of model development, including limitations in time, resources, and/or data availability, or their addition was thought unlikely to significantly improve the model. Discussing these issues, however briefly, will be important for the EPA to make a case in the report why the current model is "fit for purpose."
Roberts also commented upon the "general impression . . . that the model was constructed with limited input from experts in thyroid endocrinology," as well as EPA's admission during the peer review panel's meeting that literature searches to collect information to build and calibrate the model ceased at some point in 2013. He urged EPA to work with Leung and another panel member and endocrinology expert, Elizabeth Pearce, who he said offered EPA access to raw data from their own newer studies.
Roberts acknowledges that "every analysis has to employ a cut-off for new information as a practical matter. However, a three-year gap in knowledge is a pretty long one, and as Dr. Pearce pointed out . . . the literature on iodine and thyroid hormones in pregnancy, and on neurodevelopmental outcomes, has exploded in the last three years. I am NOT suggesting that EPA do a systematic literature search . . . given the time and expense involved. However, it is likely that the newer literature contains reports that may be useful for re-calibration, or at a minimum, evaluation of model output. The EPA should consider conducting a focused search of literature from 2013-2016 for papers of papers of potential value . . ."
Challenging Recommendations
As in the peer reviewers' meeting, panelist Dale Hattis again provided one of the most challenging recommendations for EPA, by asking why the model does not link the mechanism for perchlorate from iodine uptake inhibition to neurodevelopmental effects -- an approach considered by the SAB panel but dismissed as too complex and time consuming. The panel instead recommended in 2013 that EPA "use the existing model to estimate iodide uptake inhibition and empirical observations to relate iodide uptake inhibition to thyroid hormone perturbations" and then link this to research "to identify the degree of iodide uptake inhibition required for onset of hypothyroxinemia in a pregnant woman."
But Hattis, a research professor at Clark University, argues in the report that "my most serious problems with the analysis relate to the choice of population to be modeled and the endpoints that were made the focus of the analysis. Briefly, in focusing on thyroid hormone changes, the authors have neglected the prime effect of ultimate interest--changes in cognitive development measured as IQ. The latter will need to be a key focus in the mandated 'Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis (HRRCA)' . . . IQ differences are readily subject to the comparative economic analysis needed for an HRRCA, whereas it will be difficult to quantify the independent value of thyroid hormone changes themselves for juxtaposition with compliance and other costs of alternative regulatory actions to change exposures. Additionally, the focus on modeling of changes in thyroid hormone levels has led the authors to focus their analysis on lactating mothers and breast- and formula-fed infants after birth. This neglects the population groups that are known to be most sensitive to the effects of iodide and thyroid hormone action -- women in the first pregnancy trimester..." -
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/peer-review-report-questions-perchlorate-models-fitness-epa-policy
-
The Senate is About to Pass a Bill That Could Keep Asbestos and Other Deadly Chemicals Legal
May 15, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Alex Formuzis
Seat belts. Two pilots in every cockpit. Cribs that don’t strangle infants. These federal rules, and many others, have saved a lot of lives over the years. In the process they’ve made American consumer products better and given customers more confidence in their purchases.
But as you may have noticed, these days some Washington politicians don’t like rules of any kind. The Senate is about to consider legislation our friends at the Center for American Progress call the License to Kill Bill, because it would effectively block federal agencies from issuing any new rules, even those that would advance public health and safety.
Consider asbestos, which many people think was banned decades ago, but is still legal and lethal, responsible for up to 15,000 American deaths every year. The reason it’s still legal is that in 1991 a federal appeals court overturned the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed ban because the EPA hadn’t considered “less burdensome” measures.
Last year the Senate voted unanimously for – and President Obama signed into law – legislation that removed the roadblocks that had blocked the EPA’s asbestos ban. The agency is now prioritizing banning asbestos.
But the so-called Regulatory Accountability Act under consideration by the Senate – which already sailed through the House – would restore the very same hurdles Congress tore down last year. This would not just scuttle an attempt to ban asbestos, but any future effort to protect public health and consumers.
The License to Kill Bill would require so many hoops, hurdles and barriers that no rules would ever make it to the finish line. Here’s the gauntlet through which proposed rules would have to run:
· An endless loop of agency studies of potential alternatives;
· Agencies being required to pick the alternative least costly to industry;
· Limits on the science that agencies can use to make decisions;
· Administrative hearings creating more delays;
· Judges being allowed to second-guess agency experts; and
· Congress needing to approve new rules before they go into effect.
Last August the American Chemistry Council, the powerful lobby group for the chemical industry, pleaded with the EPA to let asbestos off the hook, arguing it was essential for the chlor-alkali industry. In President Trump the asbestos industry has a friend in the White House – Trump’s own enthusiasm for asbestos is well-known.
When asked, Americans overwhelmingly want increased enforcement of laws and regulations that keep people safe. But Congress and the president seem hellbent on resurrecting Saturday Night Live’s Irwin Mainway and his cavalier views on consumer protection:
The Regulatory Accountability Act becomes law, Bag O’ Glass and Johnny Switchblade could seem quaint compared to what is in store for consumer safety.
http://www.ewg.org/planet-trump/2017/05/senate-about-pass-bill-could-keep-asbestos-and-other-deadly-chemicals-legal
-
EU member States Back D4 And D5 Restriction Proposal
May 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch
EU member states have voted to approve a proposal to restrict the use of octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) and decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5) in wash-off cosmetic products in a concentration equal to or greater than 0.1% by weight.
The UK proposed the restriction and REACH Committee members backed a draft Regulation at their 10 May meeting. The restriction will apply 24 months after the Regulation's entry into force.
Earlier this year, 31 NGOs wrote to REACH Committee members saying the restriction proposal was limited. They argued it covers only 'minor use' and urged them to consider proposing the substances for inclusion on Annex XIV – the authorisation list.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55861/eu-member-states-back-d4-and-d5-restriction-proposal
-
Paper Questions LNG Demand Growth Centers
May 15, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
Natural gas demand in the two giant Asian economies has an uncertain future, despite the best hopes of liquefied natural gas exporters, warns a study by energy economists.
Researchers at the University of Texas, Austin's Center for Energy Economics (CEE) question the robustness of LNG demand growth in India and China, which lack sufficient infrastructure and storage capacity and face uncertain economic directions.
The report on future gas demand in India and China arrives at an unfortunate time for LNG export promoters rejoicing over a deal forged by President Trump to authorize more shipments of U.S. LNG to China.
Looking to slightly shrink the United States' gargantuan trade deficit, the deal calls for China to purchase more LNG from the United States in an intermediate 100-day agreement. Analysts at the consulting firm Wood Mackenzie see the agreement announced last week as holding major implications for international LNG trade.
"In the longer term, the deal paves the way for a second wave of investment in U.S. LNG. Developers will now be able to target Chinese buyers directly, potentially supporting project financing," Massimo Di-Odoardo, Wood Mackenzie's global head of gas LNG research, said in his assessment. "It could also support direct Chinese investment into liquefaction and upstream developments on U.S. soil." He said he believes China's imports of LNG will be triple last year's volumes by 2030.
However, CEE thinks the promise is greatly oversold.
It notes that China's primary LNG consumer is industrial manufacturing, which already stands at overcapacity and may be forced to downsize. Meanwhile, renewable energy has been advancing on China's grid at an equal pace to natural gas. And though China's gas infrastructure is far more advanced than India's, a CEE study questions whether that nation will ever truly develop a commercial gas sector as sophisticated as the United States', where gas is delivered directly to households.
It also sees government-driven market distortions impeding gas demand in China. India's gas sector is plagued with the same issues, CEE's study notes.
"The presence of powerful state owned enterprises in the natural gas sector together with the high degree of government intervention in natural gas pricing and supply allocation discourage private investment in the sector, especially private foreign investment, shutting out new sources of capital," the study says. "This is an acute problem in India where access to abundant and affordable capital is very problematic."
China's export-driven growth model is running out of steam, and leadership there has pledged to shift the base of that economy toward consumption and services, though there are very few outward signs of this shift. Reports indicate that China's government continues to stimulate the nation's economy through export subsidies and infrastructure spending.
Meanwhile, policymakers say India has the opposite problem and must focus more on industry and exports and less on services and domestic consumption, though it is unclear where overseas demand for a mass wave of Indian exports will come from.
The realities on the ground don't point to either economy emerging as a major sponge for huge new LNG export capacity coming online in the United States and elsewhere, CEE's study says. "Current indicators are negative, uncertain at best," says the center's senior energy adviser, Miranda Wainberg.
China's massive public- and private-sector debts and "excess industrial capacity" are a worry for the center. As for India, it notes that the Indian economy is roughly 20 percent the size of China's, and that nation's power companies are in much worse financial shape, impeding their ability to shift generation more toward natural gas, including from LNG imports.
More fundamentally, says energy economist Michelle Michot Foss, is the fact that both countries don't have any place to put mass volumes of gas imports. India and China both do not have the large underground salt caverns for storage that the United States utilizes, she notes, and it is unclear how they would compensate for this disadvantage. "We believe there is a distinct link between natural gas storage and the ability for gas markets to grow and become more robust," she said.
Other critics have pointed out that simple geography poses challenges to the optimists seeing China and India becoming major demand hubs for LNG on par with Japan.
Japan is an archipelago, necessitating ship-borne gas imports in the form of LNG. China and India are continental and sit adjacent to major natural gas producers, including Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and potentially Iran should that nation choose to develop its own massive natural gas reserves.
As a point of caution, the CEE study notes that in the summer of 2016, China's imports of LNG actually fell by about 17 percent as LNG prices rose, while pipeline imports expanded by 21 percent year over year. And though pricing is distorted by government intervention, pipeline imports are cheaper.
CEE sees gas demand growth to be more moderate than the more bullish forecasts assume, heavily predicated on China's industry continuing to expand and on government policies directing more consumption of gas at the expense of coal. India gas demand growth is also expected to be modest, according to the analysis.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/05/15/stories/1060054535
-
Package Will Land On Hill In A Few Weeks — Chao
May 15, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Camille von Kaenel
The Trump administration will send its infrastructure package to Congress in a few weeks, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce today.
Sixteen agencies have been preparing the broad package, she said, which will pack $200 billion in direct federal spending for a broad range of projects — from roads and bridges to broadband and energy infrastructure.
The taxpayer funds are aimed at "triggering" $1 trillion in private investment, she said.
Chao also promised the package would remove regulatory burdens to speed project development.
The administration first promised to bring up the infrastructure bill next fall after doing health care and tax reform, but it recently pushed up what is likely to be more of a bipartisan effort than other legislative priorities.
Chao also said the administration is looking at ways to prepare transportation workers, like truck drivers, for autonomous vehicles and other technologies. She urged companies involved in developing new technology to help educate the public about how drones and self-driving cars will change transportation.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/05/15/stories/1060054552
-
Could The Energy Bill Make A Comeback?
May 15, 2017 | Roll Call
By Jeremy Dillon
The broad energy bill that stalled at the end of the last Congress may have new life, according to comments by the two leaders of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee during an recent event at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, and the committee’s ranking Democrat, Washington’s Maria Cantwell, said on May 3 they again aim to update the nation’s energy policies for the first time in nearly a decade.
Such a bill would face many of the challenges that tripped it up last year, especially in a House where the leading item on the energy agenda continues to be easing regulations on fossil fuels.
Murkowski noted that she does not have a timeline for the bill’s revival.
“I have promised, and I know Sen. Cantwell has made the same commitments, that we are not done with our energy bill that we advanced last year,” Murkowski said when asked about her committee’s agenda this Congress. “That was a bipartisan effort that deserves to be enacted into law, and we will see that through.”
The bill, including measures to streamline permits for liquefied natural gas export facilities, to advance energy efficiency in building codes and energy grids and to revamp public lands policies like wildfire funding, had made it as far as conference negotiations between the House and Senate.
But the negotiations ran up against the end of the congressional calendar, and the House adjourned without taking up what the conference had produced — a limited bill focusing mainly on public lands initiatives.
The desire to put those policies in place remains strong in the Senate.
Originally, the bill moved out of the chamber on an 85-12 vote, a notable majority for a bill covering such a broad range of issues. Murkowski’s committee has focused much of its 2017 agenda on how to go further to streamline regulations than proposed in last year’s bill.
“We are never going to give up getting our House colleagues to get up to speed on what are the next steps in energy that we can agree on,” Cantwell said.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee has also signaled that it might restart some of its efforts from last Congress, though its leaders appear to be more focused on lifting limits on fossil fuels than on modernizing dated rules.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/policy/energy-bill-make-comeback
-
Grid Review Splits Renewable Energy Providers
May 15, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Christa Marshall
Several renewable energy groups are urging Energy Secretary Rick Perry to use a contested grid study to consider how their industries are not receiving the same benefits as wind, natural gas and other technologies.
Critics see DOE's review of grid reliability and subsidies as a potential threat to the federal wind tax credit, especially since study leader Travis Fisher has questioned its value and the broader benefit of renewable energy mandates (Greenwire, April 19).
But the groups behind the letter — which represent renewable industries providing baseload power — are targeting the DOE study as a way to address what they say are unfair policies at the state and federal level.
The National Hydropower Association, the American Biogas Council, the Geothermal Energy Association, the Energy Recovery Council and the Biomass Power Association said they were "very encouraged" by DOE's action to assess the grid.
"The build-out of wind, solar and natural gas over the past decade has far outpaced that of hydropower, biomass, geothermal, biogas and waste-to-energy," the groups wrote in the letter to Perry last week.
"Due to low market prices for natural gas and wind, and a history of federal and state support that has favored these technologies, baseload renewables have been struggling to compete and, in some cases, are facing closures," they said.
Unlike with other renewables, tax credits benefiting the groups on the letter have expired and are often not recognized in state renewable programs.
The advocates requested a meeting with Perry to help ensure that the grid review demonstrates "the need to better recognize, value and properly compensate renewable baseload technologies" that provide nearly 10 percent of total U.S. power.
Perry has said little about the grid study in the past week, instead focusing on a tour of the national labs and a visit to a Veterans Affairs medical center in Houston today.
Last month, he floated the idea of pre-empting state energy policy in a speech in New York, although it remains unclear the degree to which the department might look into renewable mandates (Energywire, April 26).
Greg Wetstone, president of the American Council on Renewable Energy, said he hopes DOE will consider the groups' concerns. That "would be a constructive result," he said.
Michael Goggin, senior director of research at the American Wind Energy Association, said in an email, "Thanks to technology advances, wind and solar plants now provide the grid reliability services discussed in this letter as well as or better than other resources."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/05/15/stories/1060054561
-
'Dangerous' Ransomware Campaign Roils Global Computer Networks
May 15, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
A global digital hostage crisis unfolded Friday as a wormlike "ransomware" campaign infected thousands of computers in at least 74 countries, according to multiple authorities in the U.S. and Europe.
Cybersecurity experts rushed over the weekend to contain the fallout from the "WannaCry" malware, which encrypts files on victim machines and demands an online ransom payment to unlock them.
Such ransomware tools have existed for years, but WannaCry outpaced its predecessors by exploiting a recently discovered flaw in a Microsoft Windows messaging protocol to spread.
To add to the firestorm, the National Security Agency is alleged to have used the same Windows messaging protocol to spy on its targets while keeping Microsoft Corp. in the dark, based on a leak of NSA tools from the "Shadowbrokers" hacking group in April.
While Microsoft had already pushed out a fix for the vulnerability by the time it was publicly exposed, many companies had not yet applied it, even as of this weekend. The ransomware touched off a pandemic as it hopped among unpatched networks.
Sixteen U.K. medical organizations, including several hospitals, were affected by WannaCry, according to the country's National Health Service. Transportation systems, manufacturers, and power and gas utilities were also beset by ransomware as the malware campaign gained steam in Western Europe and Russia.
"This is dangerous," said Joshua Corman, director of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council and a member of the Health Care Industry Cybersecurity Task Force. "Our dependence on connected technologies now includes areas affecting public safety and human life."
By Friday afternoon, cybersecurity company Kaspersky Lab had recorded some 45,000 WannaCry attacks across the globe, with ransom demands ranging from $300 to $600 in anonymized bitcoins. By yesterday, new attacks had slowed to a trickle in the U.S., which was partly insulated from the threat based on the early action of a malware researcher who inadvertently triggered a "kill switch" in the ransomware's code by paying about $11 to register a domain name that the malware beaconed out to in order to check if it should keep spreading. But a new wave of attacks may be waiting for U.S. businesses today as workers return to the office and hackers hone their tools.
U.S. energy companies were put on high alert as the Department of Homeland Security issued warnings about the attack.
Avangrid, which runs eight electric and gas utilities in the northeastern U.S., took the unusual step Friday of severing all network communications with its sister businesses in Spain, the U.K., Brazil and Mexico, according to a company statement. The energy firm noted that it had found traces of malware "on a very limited number" of desktop PCs, but that no customer data or operational networks had been impacted.
The hack represented "generalized attacks on multiple infrastructures, clearly," said Sarah Cortes, a cybersecurity specialist who helped pen guides on smart grid security for the National Institute of Standards and Technology. "The impact is enormous."
Only one U.S. electric utility — the municipal Lansing Board of Water and Light in Michigan — is publicly known to have had its business network crippled by ransomware in the past. But security experts say that lone data point does not reflect the fact that ransomware is a common scourge for the power sector, as it is with almost any major internet-connected industry.
But the U.S. energy sector has never faced what researchers consider a nightmare scenario — ransomware burrowing all the way into the industrial control systems of power and gas utilities, holding their critical operations hostage. Many control networks leverage the same Microsoft messaging protocol used in the attack, according to multiple industrial cybersecurity experts.
Michael Toecker, engineer at Context Industrial Security, called WannaCry "hugely relevant in ICS [industrial control systems]," where he said there are "lots of old systems, very little fast patching, and poor perimeter controls."
While WannaCry was not apparently targeting hospitals, let alone grid controls, a more carefully tailored ransomware sample could cut through control systems "like Swiss cheese," Toecker noted.
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper Jr. warned last week that ransomware campaigns are part of an escalation in advanced cyber weaponry the U.S. will face.
He told a congressional committee, "We can look for adversaries — particularly the non-state ones — to become ever more sophisticated technologically and operationally — for example, to manipulate data to affect its fidelity — which is much harder to detect and potentially much more disruptive, and we're going to see a lot more use of ransomware."NSA links
To security researchers, the attack demonstrated how a relatively simple piece of malware can snowball into a catastrophe in today's interconnected world.
But the incident has also shed an unflattering light on the NSA practice of hoarding software backdoors — without notifying the vulnerable companies — in order to carry out its mission to spy on America's foreign adversaries (Energywire, Aug. 19, 2016).
Last month, the mysterious "Shadowbrokers" resurfaced to leak a cache of U.S. hacking weapons, including the Microsoft Server Message Block weakness that the NSA allegedly hijacked under the code name "EternalBlue."
"Intelligence-grade hacking tools are being released into the wild of the internet because those who have developed these tools have not secured them adequately," said Ed McAndrew, a former federal cyber crimes prosecutor and chairman of the privacy and data security practice at the Ballard Spahr LLP law firm. "So if you're responsible for the release of a cyber arsenal that can then be weaponized and used against the public, sovereign immunity issues aside, there's a real question about what role the U.S. government played in this type of attack."
The NSA subjects its exploits to a thinly articulated policy test known as the vulnerabilities equities process (VEP). If a given flaw would harm U.S. critical infrastructure if it fell into enemy hands, the thinking goes, the government should lean toward sharing details of the vulnerability with the affected company so U.S. systems aren't left exposed.
"It would be shocking if the NSA knew about this vulnerability but failed to disclose it to Microsoft until after it was stolen," Patrick Toomey, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union's National Security Project, said in a statement Friday. "These [WannaCry] attacks underscore the fact that vulnerabilities will be exploited not just by our security agencies, but by hackers and criminals around the world."
The NSA did not respond to a request for comment.
Whether the WannaCry attack and its resulting fallout leads to any changes in the VEP remains to be seen. The ransomware attack did not come up during a conference call with homeland security and Trump administration officials Friday to explain last week's cybersecurity executive order to stakeholders in critical infrastructure, according to sources who requested anonymity to discuss the nonpublic conversation.
Microsoft President and Chief Legal Officer Brad Smith said in a blog post yesterday that the attack "provides yet another example of why the stockpiling of vulnerabilities by governments is such a problem."
"An equivalent scenario with conventional weapons would be the U.S. military having some of its Tomahawk missiles stolen," he wrote. "And this most recent attack represents a completely unintended but disconcerting link between the two most serious forms of cybersecurity threats in the world today — nation-state action and organized criminal action."
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) called the NSA's potential link to WannaCry "deeply disturbing," adding that he is working on legislation to reform the VEP.
"Currently the Vulnerabilities Equities Process is not transparent and few people understand how the government makes these critical decisions," Lieu said in a statement Friday. "Today's worldwide ransomware attack shows what can happen when the NSA or CIA write malware instead of disclosing the vulnerability to the software manufacturer."
Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said, "We'll likely look back at this [attack] as a watershed moment."
"Cybersecurity isn't a hypothetical problem — today shows it can be life or death," he observed in a statement Friday.
Corman of the Atlantic Council raised the specter of a future wave of attacks causing even more damage. "By over-connecting these things and underinvesting, we have opened ourselves to accidents and adversaries," he said. "We are lucky, and our luck will run out."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/05/15/stories/1060054513
-
May 15, 2017 | Greater Baton Rouge Business Report
By Meredith Whitten
For 109 years the New Orleans Public Belt Railroad has served as a catalyst for regional economic development by connecting the Port of New Orleans with railroad services. Since beginning operations in 1908, the NOPB has had a primary mission of serving both the port and local industries.
Owned by the city of New Orleans and a designated political subdivision of the state of Louisiana, the NOPB—a short-line Class III switching railroad—operates as a separate, neutral and financially independent entity. The NOPB plays a vital role in not only the local and regional economies, but in the national and global economies, as well. Rail traffic volumes have increased with global trade, and the NOPB is an important link in expediting local and intermediating freight through the strategic New Orleans rail gateway. New Orleans is one of four gateways connecting the eastern and western United States with six Class I railroads: BNSF, Union Pacific, Canadian National, Kansas City Southern, CSXT and Norfolk Southern. (Railroad class is based on revenue.)
In addition to the six Class I railroads that directly connect with the Public Belt, the NOPB also has a strong local customer base, largely resulting from demand driven by companies located on Port of New Orleans property. Examples include Ceres Gulf Inc., Destination Truck and Rail, Pacorini Metals USA, and U.S. Gypsum Co.
Yet despite the NOPB’s well-established history in the region, few residents are aware that the city of New Orleans actually owns a railroad. This was the case when New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu and his administration took office in 2010.
“When we came in office in 2010, the Public Belt was embroiled in a scandal,” says Ryan Berni, the city of New Orleans’ deputy mayor of external affairs. “We were kind of surprised to learn the city even owned a railroad.”
It’s understandable that the city-owned railroad was not high on people’s radar. The Public Belt takes no tax money, but also contributes nothing to tax revenue. This piqued the mayor’s interest.
“The Public Belt is one of the only city assets that doesn’t have a direct financial relationship with the city,” says Berni. “The Public Belt is greatly undercapitalized. Given the global dynamics around private infrastructure, there is an opportunity to improve and enhance the railroad’s economic relationship with the city, the port and its customers.”
The city hired consulting firm KPMG to evaluate possible options for the NOPB, including maintaining the status quo, selling the NOPB outright, and entering into a long-term public-private partnership in which a private operator would run and maintain the Public Belt. In April 2016 KPMG determined the valuation of NOPB’s assets was between $61 million and $196 million.
Ultimately, the city opted to pursue a public-private-partnership approach, which would “keep the city and port competitive and neutral, while having a private capital partner grow business and increase efficiency and safety,” Berni says. The city opted not to sell the NOPB outright, in part, because of potential risks to the local customer base from removing the Public Belt from public governance.
“We looked at the pros and cons of all three options,” Berni says. “We wanted an option that would allow us to better make strategic investment, allow for the efficient movement of freight, have the best economic impact, particularly on jobs, increase the financial stability of the railroad and have a great increase in tax revenue. And, the option would have to work for the citizens of New Orleans, who are the owners, as well as the port and customers.”
The city’s objectives include increasing the amount of tax revenue generated for the city by increasing business activity with the Public Belt and the port; growing the comprehensive NOPB business and being a complementary partner to grow cargo at the port; increasing economic activity throughout Orleans Parish and the New Orleans region, including job growth; and retaining and growing the existing labor pool through higher volume/rail throughput.
In January the city issued a nonbinding request for qualifications (RFQ) for a private partner to take over operations, capital improvements, maintenance and carrier responsibilities of the NOPB’s core rail operating assets for 40 years. The private operator would be responsible for capital improvements and maintenance.
The lease includes the Huey P. Long Bridge over the Mississippi River. The city would retain ownership of the NOPB. The city is seeking at least $20 million in upfront payments and at least $1 million in annual lease payments over the 40-year period, resulting in at least $60 million for city coffers.
Five ventures responded, and the city now is in the process of reviewing the submissions. Up to five will be shortlisted and invited to submit final, binding proposals. The city expects the process of selecting a preferred respondent to be complete by mid-summer.
From the city’s perspective, entering into a public-private partnership provides an opportunity to not only bring in revenue from the long-term lease, but also to bring in funding for critical capital projects and maintenance activities that would increase not only throughput, but also competitiveness and safety of the NOPB.
Yet the city faces strong opposition to its plans for entering into a long-term lease with a private operator. The NOPB and its users, the Port of New Orleans, the Board of Trade, the Louisiana Railroad Association and the Greater New Orleans AFL-CIO have expressed opposition to the idea of leasing operational authority of the Public Belt to a private third-party corporation.
They argue the move could actually make the Port of New Orleans less competitive and, ultimately, hurt the local and regional economies. Greater New Orleans Inc., a regional economic development alliance that serves the 10-parish region in southeast Louisiana, is neutral on the Public Belt issue, according to Caitlin S. Berni, vice president for policy and communications, who is married to Deputy Mayor Ryan Berni.
“We were not set up to be a revenue generator for the city,” says Doug Campbell, NOPB’s interim CEO. “We were set up to help the city and the port grow. There’s concern that a private group would come in that is driven by profit. The question we ask ourselves is, ‘What’s best for the port, the city and the growth of this area?’ That’s what drives us. It’s not, ‘How can we make $10 million this year?’ If the city gets a bid for $20 million or $1 million a year for the next 40 years, is that life-changing for a city the size of New Orleans?”
As a public entity, the NOPB is tax-exempt, and the Port of New Orleans does not charge the NOPB rent for using port-owned properties.
The primary argument against the proposal to lease operation of the Public Belt is that a for-profit operator would raise rates or decrease service.
“We fear a private operator would come in and immediately raise rates,” says Brett Bourgeois, executive director of the New Orleans Board of Trade. “The cargo our users represent is very price-sensitive. If the price increases, they will go look for other ports.”
Brandy Christian, president and CEO of the Port of New Orleans, says the current rates are “reasonable and manageable.”
“The port is very satisfied with the current model and service—we’re not calling for any change,” she says. “Introducing a private profit motive into the rate structure will necessarily raise the current rates. That raises the specter of a loss of competitiveness for the port and its customers. We operate in a very competitive business and the [importance of the] Public Belt cannot be overstated.”
Bourgeois adds that a private operator could reduce the level of service to port users. “This would affect getting from point A to point B in a timely manner, so then we’re dealing with a time issue,” he says. “The Public Belt is a very important cog in the wheel that makes everything run.”
Those who oppose leasing the railroad’s operations also express concern about preferential treatment for some users. They stress that maintaining an independent, neutral entity is essential.
“The Public Belt is a neutral entity that has no favoritism to any of the railroads—all carriers are treated the same,” says Carmack M. Blackmon, general counsel and legislative representative with the Louisiana Railroads Association. “All six Class I’s that operate in New Orleans and utilize the Public Belt have advised city officials that they prefer to retain the status quo. They are not interested in a third-party, for-profit operator.”
Blackmon adds that when one or two railroads get higher priority over the movement of freight, traffic starts to back up, which affects the bottom line for the railroads. In turn, there could be ramifications for the regional economy.
Tiger Hammond, president of the GNO AFL-CIO, elaborates on this.
“Privatizing operation of the NOPB would reduce port competitiveness by increasing the cost of business once the privatized railroad exploits the natural rail-to-port choke point, forming a de facto monopoly,” he says. “If the economic pressures inherent in the port’s choke point are not balanced by thoughtful government public action, then the city of New Orleans will lose some of its natural competitive advantages in the global marketplace.”
Christian notes this neutrality is a founding principle of the NOPB. “The railroad was established as an independent, neutral party to ensure the provision of equitable and competitive switching service to the port’s facilities, customers and industries,” she says. “This independent role is still needed to ensure that the Class I railroads do not use rate-setting and service practices to gain a competitive advantage.”
The Port of New Orleans, which has invested more than $100 million in capital improvement projects since 2012, including the $25 million Mississippi River Intermodal Rail Terminal, has experienced consistent growth in recent years, Christian says. But she adds that the port has experienced somewhat of a “chilling effect on business because of the uncertainty” surrounding the Public Belt’s future operational structure, with several port tenants already expressing concerns about changes to the railroad’s operations.
“The Class I’s are trying to make decisions about introducing services, and their business model is based on existing rates. For now, they are not spending capital,” Christian says.
However, according to Berni, “A lot of uncertainty has been because of attempts to stop or delay this process, especially early on. Once we got to this point, I think we’ve moved pretty swiftly.”
Additional concerns include that a private operator could develop its own infrastructure, such as warehouses or a transload facility, nearby and compete with port customers. Also, all NOPB employees, except for management, are unionized. The NOPB has 180 employees.
One reason that the port and its stakeholders, local industry leaders and local labor associations support maintaining the current operational model is, they say, because concerns they had with the NOPB and its commission were addressed in 2011. After a state legislative audit, the NOPB underwent significant changes, including the resignation of the then-general manager. At the time, the idea of selling the NOPB was suggested. Instead officials instituted management and organizational changes supported by the Port of New Orleans, the Board of Trade and the NOPB itself. Those changes vastly enhanced the Public Belt’s operations, they say.
“The Public Belt is running better than in recent memory,” says Campbell, NOPB’s interim CEO. “The Public Belt is an efficiently run railroad and we’re creating partnerships in the right way. Customers are coming to us and asking what else we can do for them. That’s almost unheard of in railroads.”
Instead of privatizing operations, Campbell and others say, the status quo should be maintained, with a focus on options to grow the railroad and add capacity that the NOPB has identified, such as expanding the railroad’s operations into St. Charles and St. Bernard parishes, as well as expanding France Yard to accommodate expected customer growth in New Orleans East.
After the city selects a preferred respondent this summer, any long-term lease agreement with a private, third-party operator will have to be recommended by the NOPB’s commission and then forwarded to the City Council for approval.
“It’s a very complicated, technical issue and there are a lot of hurdles and a lot of players,” Christian says. “It’s more than just a New Orleans issue—it’s a regional and national issue, as well.”
Berni agrees, even if the city has a different perspective from other stakeholders.
“If we look at what drives discussions in the 10/12 corridor, there’s port expansion, increased trade opportunities and a lot of opportunity for growth,” he says. “We’ve got a unique situation because of the six Class I’s and we’ve got an opportunity to make a strategic decision regarding investment in this asset (the Public Belt) for the region, including customers and taxpayers.”
https://www.businessreport.com/business/everyone-agrees-new-orleans-public-belt-critical-cog-global-economy-another-question
-
Carbon Tax Attempts Sweeping The Northeast
May 15, 2017 | The Washington Post (In E&E Climatewire)
By Chelsea Harvey
A group of states — predominantly in the Northeast — are renewing attempts to adopt a carbon tax.
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont and Washington have all announced legislation that would put a tax or fee on carbon emissions. In Massachusetts, 80 state lawmakers have sponsored two bills, one in the House and the other in the Senate.
Massachusetts state Sen. Mike Barrett (D) conceded that legislation like this could take time to come into effect but added that he's hopeful.
"My hope is that the Senate, at least, will act in this 2017-2018 session. Then the pressure really builds on the House, the other branch — the more conservative branch, I might add. I think they want to see the Senate take the first step," he said.
If Massachusetts' legislation passes, Rhode Island and Connecticut will be able to go ahead with their bills, both of which are contingent on Massachusetts' adoption.
Rhode Island state Rep. Aaron Regunberg (D) said this is to prevent his state from becoming less competitive in the market.
"Understanding the strength of those concerns, we included trigger language, and we've been working with folks in Massachusetts and Connecticut and other states to try to be pushing this forward together," he said.
Many of these states have tried to pass a carbon tax before, but proponents think they'll be successful this time because of a spike in interest in the subject (Chelsea Harvey, Washington Post, May 12). — KB
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/05/15/stories/1060054516
-
Occidental Petroleum Shareholders Make History With Climate Vote
May 15, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Hulac
Occidental Petroleum Corp. stockholders have demanded the company produce a report detailing how climate change threatens its business.
The resolution passed at the company's annual meeting Friday was the first time in history stockholders at a U.S. oil company successfully required a climate stress test. Companies have fought such provisions for years.
Wespath Investment Management and the Nathan Cummings Foundation were the lead filers of the resolution.
"The passing of this resolution is a sign of progress. It is a first in the United States," said Anne Simpson of the California Public Employees' Retirement System. "This vote shows that investors are serious about understanding climate risk."
In an emailed statement, Eugene Batchelder, chairman of the Occidental board, said the company looked forward to "continuing our shareholder engagement on the topic and providing additional disclosure about the company's assessment and management of climate-related risks and opportunities."
A company spokesman, citing filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, said the company is "expanding" how it discloses climate change issues. Occidental opposed the resolution.
Despite the victory for the environmentally minded at Occidental, investors have been making painstaking gains to prod the oil and gas industry to examine how climate change, and government attempts to slash greenhouse gases, threatens its business.
The industry has been doing so lethargically, in particular at U.S. firms, according to a new report.Study finds weak goals
A study by a group of climate investment groups — Ceres, CDP, the Asia Investor Group on Climate Change, the Investor Group on Climate Change and the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change — of 10 oil and gas multinationals found varying degrees of global warming policy.
Eight companies have supported the Paris climate deal, and eight also disclose their downstream emissions.
Still, supporting the Paris accord and disclosing emissions neither forces them to commit any money to low-carbon investment nor requires them to cut emissions.
Indeed, only four have set emissions reduction goals, the report found.
The companies analyzed are Occidental, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp., ConocoPhillips Co., Suncor Energy Inc., Royal Dutch Shell PLC, BP PLC, Total SA, Eni SpA and Statoil ASA.
The report praises European majors Statoil, Eni and Total as more climate-savvy than their peers. It also comes as companies are hosting and preparing for their annual meetings, including those for Exxon, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Shell, Total and BP, each this month.
While the resolution passage at Occidental was an aberration in the history of shareholder activism on climate change issues, with the help of major investors, it may kick off a trend.
BlackRock Inc., the world's biggest asset manager with more than $4 trillion, announced in March it would consider voting its stocks at company meetings, with an eye specifically to the financial risks of climate change (Greenwire, March 13).
Its "yes" votes on behalf of its roughly 8 percent of all Occidental shares helped push the stress-test proposal beyond the 50 percent mark.
The Wall Street bank JPMorgan Chase & Co. last month made a comparable announcement to BlackRock's (Climatewire, April 5).
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/05/15/stories/1060054518
-
Former Pentagon Chief: Arctic Drilling Order Could Threaten Security
May 15, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Former Secretary of Defense and CIA Director Leon Panetta says President Trump’s executive order to expand offshore drilling could threaten national security.
Writing on CNN, Panetta, who led the Pentagon under former President Barack Obama from 2011 to 2013, took aim particularly at drilling in the Arctic Ocean.
Trump did not specifically allow drilling there, but it is a likely result of his order that the Interior Department reconsider Obama’s bans.
Panetta argued that with the Arctic taking on an increased role in defense, shipping and resource extraction circles, drilling is likely to cause problems due to the climate change and environmental impacts of producing oil and natural gas there.
“It is a fact that expanding oil and gas development in the Arctic would add further stress to the climate, not to mention damage to the area's fragile species and ecosystems. It also would be an invitation to other nations to engage in the same kind of exploitation,” Panetta wrote.
Panetta said the United States’ position as an Arctic nation is complicated by the fact that it has not ratified the Law of the Sea Treaty, a convention written in the 1980s that’s meant to govern how businesses and nations treat the oceans.
But ignoring the threats of Arctic drilling can only make that worse, he said.
“There is a strong consensus among defense and intelligence leaders that the Arctic is critical to our national security,” he wrote.
“It then stands to reason we should not take steps that will exacerbate the threat to Arctic resources and global security by drilling in a strategic and environmentally sensitive part of the world. Melting ice, rising seas, droughts, famine and floods are already impacting large populations, creating refugee flows and undermining the stability of fragile nations.”
Panetta also served as Central Intelligence Agency director under Obama. He was chief of staff and later director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton.
Companies have never produced oil and natural gas from mobile drilling rigs in the United States’ portion of the Arctic Ocean, north of Alaska.
Royal Dutch Shell came closest when it drilling an exploratory well in 2015, but abandoned it after determining that it was not cost effective.
Obama declared late last year that a large swath of the U.S. Arctic would be off-limits to drilling indefinitely. Trump’s order rolled that back, but the administration would still have to separately lease drilling rights to the area in order to open it to drilling.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/333420-former-pentagon-chief-arctic-drilling-order-could-threaten-security
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested